Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X3450 and Intel Core i5-3360M are two processors from different eras and market segments, yet their benchmark scores place them in an unusually tight performance cluster. The Xeon X3450 is a quad-core server part from the Nehalem generation, while the i5-3360M is a dual-core mobile chip from Ivy Bridge. Despite the architectural gap, the data shows they trade blows within a few percentage points across every tested workload, making the choice between them entirely dependent on platform and use-case rather than raw speed.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-3360M wins all five recorded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 246 against the Xeon's 245, a 0.4% margin. The gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multicore (1029 vs 1021, a 0.8% difference) and Cinebench R23 multicore (2451 vs 2431, a 0.8% difference). Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the i5-3360M ahead by 0.7% in R20 (145 vs 144) and 0.9% in R23 (346 vs 343).

The Xeon X3450's only statistical claim is its average benchmark score of 837, which edges out the i5-3360M's 835 by 0.2%. However, this aggregate figure is buoyed by the fact that the i5-3360M has additional Geekbench results (1110 multicore, 518 singlecore) that the Xeon lacks, meaning the averages are not directly comparable across identical test suites. In every directly contested benchmark, the i5-3360M is the winner.

Where the Xeon X3450 wins is in platform capabilities, not raw scores. It supports ECC memory, which the i5-3360M does not. It also has a larger shared L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB) and a higher TDP envelope (95W vs 35W), indicating it is designed for sustained server workloads. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the i5-3360M is a Mobile part with integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. For a builder prioritizing memory reliability in a workstation, the Xeon is the clear choice despite losing every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Xeon X3450 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm process node, fabricated by Intel with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The memory bus is dual-channel DDR3 with 21.3 GB/s of bandwidth. It uses the Intel Socket 1156 interface and supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The i5-3360M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process, also from Intel. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Its cache is smaller: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and only 3 MB of shared L3. The memory bus is dual-channel, but the FACT PACK does not list a bandwidth figure. It uses the Intel BGA 1023 socket and includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The die size is 118 mm², and no transistor count is provided.

The process node difference is significant: 45 nm vs 22 nm. This explains the TDP disparity—95W for the Xeon versus 35W for the i5-3360M—despite the i5 having higher clock speeds. The i5 also supports neither ECC memory nor PCIe Gen 2 lanes from the CPU per the FACT PACK, which lists those fields as null. The Xeon is marked as End-of-life production status, while the i5's status is not specified. Their release dates are separated by nearly three years: September 2009 for the Xeon, May 2012 for the i5.

The Verdict

For a desktop or server builder with a Socket 1156 motherboard, the Xeon X3450 is the only option that fits. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads, ECC memory support, and a substantial 8 MB L3 cache. Its benchmark scores are within 1% of the i5-3360M despite being an older architecture, which speaks to the benefit of having twice the physical cores. The 95W TDP is a non-issue for a desktop or rack environment where cooling is not constrained.

For a laptop or compact mobile system, the i5-3360M is the clear pick. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, runs on 35W, and includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic workloads. Its higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz gives it the edge in single-threaded tasks, which is reflected in the consistent single-core benchmark wins.

The data shows these are effectively equal in performance—the largest delta is 0.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Neither processor offers a meaningful speed advantage. The deciding factors are platform compatibility, power budget, and feature support. If you need ECC memory or an 8-thread workload capacity, choose the Xeon. If you need integrated graphics, low power draw, or a mobile form factor, choose the i5-3360M. Both sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, meaning neither is a performance leader by modern standards—they are adequate for their respective niches.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M wins all multi-core tests, but by tiny margins. In Cinebench R15 it scores 246 vs 245, in R20 it scores 1029 vs 1021, and in R23 it scores 2451 vs 2431. The deltas range from 0.4% to 0.8%.

Q: Does the Xeon X3450 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon X3450 has ECC memory support set to true. The Core i5-3360M does not support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics does the i5-3360M have?

A: The i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Xeon X3450 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon X3450 has an average benchmark score of 837, while the i5-3360M has an average of 835. This puts the Xeon 0.2% ahead in the aggregate, but the i5 has additional Geekbench results (1110 multicore, 518 singlecore) that are not included in the Xeon's test suite.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon X3450 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each?

A: The Xeon X3450 has a TDP of 95W. The i5-3360M has a TDP of 35W, making it significantly more power-efficient.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is how consistently close these two processors are. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3360M scores 246 against the Xeon's 245, a margin of 0.4%. This is nearly a tie, and it is remarkable given that the Xeon has twice the cores and threads. The Xeon's 8 MB of L3 cache and 4-core layout should theoretically give it an advantage in multi-threaded rendering, but the i5's newer Ivy Bridge architecture and higher clock speeds compensate almost exactly.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a slightly larger gap: the i5-3360M scores 1029, the Xeon 1021, for a 0.8% delta. The pattern repeats in R23 multicore, where the i5 hits 2451 and the Xeon 2431, again a 0.8% difference. These results suggest that the i5's 22 nm process and higher boost clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) allow it to overcome the Xeon's core-count advantage in this specific workload.

Single-core benchmarks tell a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 145 versus the Xeon's 144, a 0.7% margin. In R23 single-core, the i5 scores 346 against 343, a 0.9% delta. These are the largest relative differences in the entire comparison, yet they remain under 1%. The i5's higher base clock (2.80 GHz vs 2.67 GHz) and boost clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) are the likely contributors.

The Geekbench results for the i5-3360M provide additional context, with a multicore score of 1110 and a singlecore score of 518. The Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench data in the FACT PACK, so a direct comparison is not possible. However, the i5's Geekbench scores are part of its average benchmark score calculation (835), while the Xeon's average (837) is derived solely from Cinebench results. This asymmetry means the 0.2% average score difference in the Xeon's favor should not be interpreted as a performance advantage—it is an artifact of different test sets.

The overall head-to-head tally is 5 wins for the i5-3360M and 0 for the Xeon X3450. Every delta is negative from the Xeon's perspective, ranging from -0.4% to -0.9%. If you are choosing purely on benchmark performance, the i5-3360M is the winner in every contested test. The Xeon's only consolation is that the margins are so small they would be imperceptible in real-world use.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Xeon X3450 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.67 GHz for the Xeon and 2.80 GHz for the i5; boost clocks are 3.20 GHz and 3.50 GHz respectively. TDP is a major differentiator: 95W for the Xeon, 35W for the i5.

Socket types are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1156, the i5 uses Intel BGA 1023. Architectures differ—Nehalem for the Xeon, Ivy Bridge for the i5—as do process nodes (45 nm vs 22 nm). The Xeon's die size is 296 mm² with 774 million transistors; the i5's die is 118 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Cache configurations are substantially different. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 versus the i5's 3 MB. Memory support shows the Xeon with DDR3 and 21.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 lists null for memory support and bandwidth but confirms dual-channel. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not the i5. PCIe is Gen 2 with 16 lanes on the Xeon, while the i5 has no PCIe data listed. Integrated graphics are absent on the Xeon but present as Intel HD 4000 on the i5.

Market segments diverge: Server/Workstation for the Xeon, Mobile for the i5. The Xeon is marked End-of-life, while the i5's production status is not specified. Release dates are September 2009 for the Xeon and May 2012 for the i5. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $241, while the i5 has no launch MSRP listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SLBLD for the Xeon and SR0MW for the i5.